AuthorTopic: Duke or Hasting (Read 6385 times)

I would like to practice international business law (I can speak and read Chinese as a Chinese native speaker)in California after law school, preferentially Bay Area. I think Hastings has a big alumini network at Bay Area. On the other hand, Duke is ranked higher and has a better national reputation.

What should I do? Have to make up my mind pretty soon. Any suggestion will be appreciated!

I have several friends who are either attending or have graduated from Hastings. The reputation is actually that it is nearly impossible for a Hastings grad to get a job in the bay area. All of the jobs go to graduates from Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, and T14 schools. While all of my friends who attended Hastings did so because they wanted to practice in the bay area, they were all forced to seek jobs in other areas, mostly outside of California.

I have several friends who are either attending or have graduated from Hastings. The reputation is actually that it is nearly impossible for a Hastings grad to get a job in the bay area. All of the jobs go to graduates from Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, and T14 schools. While all of my friends who attended Hastings did so because they wanted to practice in the bay area, they were all forced to seek jobs in other areas, mostly outside of California.

Youre a dumbshit. Morrison and Foerster employs a whopping 6 Duke grads vs 59 Hastings grads. Orrick employs 13 Duke grads (1 of whom actually works in the SF office) to 33 Hastings (the majority of whom are in the Bay Area). Hell Latham and Watkins employs 6 Duke grads NONE of whom are in CA to 21 Hastings grads the majority of whom are in the Bay Area.

Look at the summer associates for any big firm in the Bay area and they will have more Hastings students than Duke.

Hastings grads have no problem landing positions in the Bay Area and employment in California is a given so long as you can pass the bar.

I have several friends who are either attending or have graduated from Hastings. The reputation is actually that it is nearly impossible for a Hastings grad to get a job in the bay area. All of the jobs go to graduates from Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, and T14 schools. While all of my friends who attended Hastings did so because they wanted to practice in the bay area, they were all forced to seek jobs in other areas, mostly outside of California.

Youre a dumbshit. Morrison and Foerster employs a whopping 6 Duke grads vs 59 Hastings grads. Orrick employs 13 Duke grads (1 of whom actually works in the SF office) to 33 Hastings (the majority of whom are in the Bay Area). Hell Latham and Watkins employs 6 Duke grads NONE of whom are in CA to 21 Hastings grads the majority of whom are in the Bay Area.

Look at the summer associates for any big firm in the Bay area and they will have more Hastings students than Duke.

Hastings grads have no problem landing positions in the Bay Area and employment in California is a given so long as you can pass the bar.

But what percentage of applicants that applied from each school got the job? Obviously more people from Hastings are going to work in the Bay Area. The question is who has a better chance of getting a job in the Bay Area.

Unfortunately a) theres no way to get that data and b) there are so many variables in play that even if you could show the percentage of Hastings grads and Duke grads applying for and getting jobs in the Bay Area it wouldnt be particularly meaningful.

Point is Hastings places very well in the Bay Area despite Barry's bull claims.

Whether the OP should attend Hastings over Duke is a different matter. Duke is T-14 and opens alot of doors. Whether it has some particular leverage in the market OP is looking to get into I dont know, its in the South and there are very few Duke alumni in the Bay Area. Sure Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Stanford beat out Hastings in the SF market but after that Hastings dominates the rest of the T-14, UCLA, and USC on its own turf. Thats due to volume, location, quality of the school, and alumni/reputation.

I have several friends who are either attending or have graduated from Hastings. The reputation is actually that it is nearly impossible for a Hastings grad to get a job in the bay area. All of the jobs go to graduates from Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, and T14 schools. While all of my friends who attended Hastings did so because they wanted to practice in the bay area, they were all forced to seek jobs in other areas, mostly outside of California.

Youre a dumbshit. Morrison and Foerster employs a whopping 6 Duke grads vs 59 Hastings grads. Orrick employs 13 Duke grads (1 of whom actually works in the SF office) to 33 Hastings (the majority of whom are in the Bay Area). Hell Latham and Watkins employs 6 Duke grads NONE of whom are in CA to 21 Hastings grads the majority of whom are in the Bay Area.

Look at the summer associates for any big firm in the Bay area and they will have more Hastings students than Duke.

Hastings grads have no problem landing positions in the Bay Area and employment in California is a given so long as you can pass the bar.

But what percentage of applicants that applied from each school got the job? Obviously more people from Hastings are going to work in the Bay Area. The question is who has a better chance of getting a job in the Bay Area.

Unfortunately a) theres no way to get that data and b) there are so many variables in play that even if you could show the percentage of Hastings grads and Duke grads applying for and getting jobs in the Bay Area it wouldnt be particularly meaningful.

Point is Hastings places very well in the Bay Area despite Barry's bull claims.

Whether the OP should attend Hastings over Duke is a different matter. Duke is T-14 and opens alot of doors. Whether it has some particular leverage in the market OP is looking to get into I dont know, its in the South and there are very few Duke alumni in the Bay Area. Sure Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Stanford beat out Hastings in the SF market but after that Hastings dominates the rest of the T-14, UCLA, and USC on its own turf. Thats due to volume, location, quality of the school, and alumni/reputation.

I agree, I just think the information you presented earlier is somewhat misleading.

Its misleading if you are retarded. Since people here are atleast pretending to law school I expect they have a basic appreciation of statistics, even if theyve got no idea about the realities of the Bay Area legal scene. Of course my expectations are probably totally overblown.

Ok man...I'm sure hearing you're right will make you feel better. The fact remians that you're argument is flawed. Stating that there are more Hastings grads than Duke grads working as summer associates in the Bay Area proves nothing. You may be correct in stating that Hastings places better than Duke overall there, but your facts do not prove your point. Most Duke grads do not have the ultimate goal of practicing in SF, most Hastings grads do. Therefore, more Hastings grads are going to work in SF. That says nothing to the ability of Hastings to place in SF compared to Duke.

No my argument isnt flawed because Im not making an argument Im just stating facts. I listed the numbers of a few of the larger Bay Area firms. All of them employ significant numbers of Hastings students in their Bay Area offices and few if any Duke grads in those same offices, and in fact employ fewer Duke grads overall.

This shows that 1) its not "nearly impossible for a Hastings grad to get a job in the bay area," in refutation of Barry's claim and 2) there are significantly more Hastings JDs working in those three firms than Duke JDs

Thats what it shows. What you are talking about is placement rates which, as I acknowledged, we dont have any data on.